Born Rich

Born Rich is a 2003 documentary movie directed by Jamie Johnson, of the family that founded the company Johnson & Johnson. The documentary consists of a series of interviews of college-aged children of the rich, along with some of Jamie’s narration. Jamie was about 23-years old when this movie was filmed, and yes the movie does have the look of an NYU film student’s final project, but therein lies some of its charm.

What other people have to say about this movie is, in some ways, more interesting the movie itself. Not surprisingly to me, the college-age children of the super-rich aren’t that much different than the college-age children of regular multi-millionaires, and there were lots of children of regular multi-millionaires attending the University of Pennsylvania. Children of regular multi-millionaires are more likely to attend private day-schools, while children of billionaires are more likely to attend private boarding schools, but there’s a lot of overlap. The point is that they grow up going to the same schools, so naturally they aren’t that much different.

Like the regular upper-middle class, the true upper class shares the ethos that one should go to college, and then “do” something. The days when the children of the American upper class would do nothing at all with their lives except go to parties (like the main character of the Edith Wharton book The House of Mirth) are now past us. It’s for this reason that the only really interesting person in the movie was Cody Franchetti. Cody is a “baron” who grew up in Europe, so he has a very un-American view of wealth. Cody is the only character in the movie who lives like the masses imagine a stereotypical rich person to live. He doesn’t pretend to “do” anything except collect antiques, and he goes to the tailor once a week to have expensive clothes made. He says that he doesn’t understand why rich Americans feel guilty about being rich. The typical reviewer of this movie hates Cody

Most reviewers like Ivanka Trump the best of all the interviewees. I think she’s awfully cute, but besides that I wasn’t too impressed. What impressed others is that Ivanka is very good at talking in a mature manner; she’s the most guarded of all the interviewees, only saying politically correct stuff. The exception is in one segment where she expresses her genuine outrage at a comment that a regular person in Australia made to her, something about how great it must be for her not to have any problems. It sounded like an innocent faux pas to me, but Ivanka is livid that someone thinks that, because she’s rich, it means she doesn’t have any problems. That fact that she’s so angry about it just demonstrates, to me, that behind her politically correct façade she has a hugely inflated opinion of herself combined with complete lack of desire to understand regular people.

A female interviewee I found more interesting than Ivanka was Stephanie Erklentz (yes, she’s no longer single), who isn’t quite model perfect like Ivanka, but she’s still cute, and she also seems very familiar. No, I don’t know her, but I’ve run across girls who act like her, who are smart enough to do well in elite colleges but are also obsessed with shopping for handbags. I thought her most interesting comment was how she worked for one day at an investment bank (at least in the interview she made it seem as if it were only one day), and then she quit when she realized how many hours she was expected to work. After all, why should she work hard when her family is rich and she gets to marry a 29-year-old hedge fund manager?

Luke Weil is probably tied with Cody for most disliked interviewee. While I disagree about Cody, I agree that there is little to like about Luke the person, who epitomizes that stereotype of the spoiled brat rich kid. On the other hand, he’s a much more interesting interviewee than Ivanka because he reveals his true self to the camera. A little Googling revealed that Luke has recently spent some time in jail. That’s a real waste of an Ivy League education.

One thing I learned from this movie that I didn’t know before is that Brown is the school most associated with the children of the very rich. Perhaps this is because Brown has a pure liberal arts undergraduate program with no practical majors such as accounting or engineering. And it tends to be the lowest ranked Ivy, so it’s the easiest one to get into. Luke Weil talked about getting extremely poor grades at Brown, yet he wasn’t kicked out of the school because his parents were too rich. Luke reminds me a lot of some guy who lived on the same floor of “High Rise East” as me when I was a sophomore at Penn.

The most humorous parts of the movie are the scenes featuring Jamie’s father, who is a nerdy Fred Rogers-like character. Jamie’s father doesn’t work and seems to spend most of his time oil painting. Jamie asks his dad what he should “do,” and his dad suggests a career as an antique map dealer. So Jamie visits an antique map dealer, who reveals his middle class background when he expresses his surprise that someone who was as wealthy as Jamie would want his job.

Jamie’s narration is kind of stiff, but he does a much better job on the two commentary tracks, where he loosens up, and has an extra year or so of wisdom behind him. You may think it’s strange having a commentary track to a documentary, because a documentary is just people talking, and here we have not one but two commentary tracks featuring people talking about other people talking, but nevertheless, you need to watch this movie again and listen to both commentary tracks. One commentary track features just Jamie, and the other has a three-way conversation with Jamie, his maternal uncle who collaborated with him on the film, and Cody Franchetti. In addition to expounding on his philosophy of not feeling guilty about being rich, Cody expresses his lack of understanding of why Americans make a big deal about where they go to college. Cody says that intelligence is innate, and that he knows of dumb people with elite college degrees. My answer to Cody is that he’s right about intelligence being innate, but in America it’s not politically correct to say so. It’s more politically correct to believe that the right education is what makes you intelligent. Cody’s attitudes are clearly influenced by some European aristocratic belief that nobles are born better than everyone else.

An interesting conversation on the commentary track occurred when Jamie was talking about some of the negative reviews by various “freelance journalists.” Jamie says that most of them are living off of trust funds themselves, and they all got very defensive about that fact when he brought it up with them. This gets to a key point I make all the time on this blog, that the “cool” professions, such as journalism, are heavily populated by children of the rich, but they don’t wear t-shirts that say “my parents are decamillionaires,” so unfortunately many middle-class children try to get into these professions without realizing how the odds are so stacked against them.

Born Rich is a must-see movie, but there should come with some sort of warning that only advanced students of social class in America will be able to appreciate its subtleties.

Comments

[Vim]

"My answer to Cody is that he’s right about intelligence being innate"

I am curious about this statement. I truely do not believe 'intelligence' is innate and I would like to hear people's actual opinions on this.

Now, I think I would agree with the idea that that one's intelligence is hard to change and therefore it takes deliberate effort over sustained period of time to make significant differences. So just like diets tend not to work and smokers tend not to quit, I believe people's intelligence tends not to change.

However, I am of the opinion that concerted practice can change the results of an IQ test by significant amounts.

However, IQ isn't always what people mean by intelligence. In this regard, do people really believe that a logic class in which you put sustained effort wouldn't make one better at logic or that a probability course in which one put sustained effort wouldn't make one better at working with probability? Wouldn't this translate into observable differences in the intelligence with which people tackle every day task?

I am actually quite curious about people's personal opinions.

[Half Sigma's response: Vim, you are taking this somewhat of topic with the first comment, because the issue addressed here is not whether the comment is TRUE, but the fact that a European "baron" THINKS it's true, and my assertion that the politically correct position taken by the upper class in America is that it's not true.]

[Andrew Yates]

Since we can illegally download this movie guilt-free, anyone have a torrent? The one that I found is only 86% available.

[Gil]

I'll agree with Vim's predicted response from H.S. that that comment seemed rather irrelevant. I was wondering about people like Cody - is he a model for the young rich kids? Why feel bad just because you were born rich? Why feel you have to learn a skill and do some productive because of grumpy middle class and poor people? (If I had too much time and money, I probably be like the guy who spends his time oil paintings :P) Maybe when Libertarians see this they'll mail out free copies of various (such as from Ayn Rand) about the superiority of the economically successful.

[Independent Accountant]

It's funny what you say about Brown. I've always tought of it as being the Ivy League's degree mill.

[dreamin]

At least 90% of the problems I face could be solved with money. So it's easy to imagine that life would be essentially problem free with a trust fund. But logically, I would guess that there are always problems.

In fact, money might create more problems.

[Chip Windschuttle]

Part of Cody's shtick is obviously an act he has developed to get into the pants of rich American girls ("I'm European! I'm titled nobility!") You forgot to mention he actually has a paying job: as a fashion model.

The other titled Euro in the film shares with us his charming, white trash ambition: a lifetime littered with several failed marriages. Britney Spears has met her match in Carlo von Zeitschel.

[Chip Windschuttle]

"Why feel you have to learn a skill and do some productive because of grumpy middle class and poor people?"

Because the existential threat to Old Money is New Money. Traditional escapes from this threat have been Nature, War, and Marriage.

[habib]

For your information, Brown does offer practical majors such as engineering (see http://www.engin.brown.edu/) and computer science.

[russ]

cody's act had to be just that, an act. It was too perfect.

I liked how he brought up that the last good encyclopedia was written in 1908 because after that they started writing them for the middle classes. That is too good to just come up with on the fly.

Most rich heirs have trusts that require them to work, do charity, etc. In fact, you'd be shocked at how modest these trusts usually are. These kids are merely basking in the aura of their parents wealth without really having any significant wealth of their own. Case in point: Paris Hilton was practically shut out of her grandfather's will.

[Peter]

News to me too about Brown. I had thought that Princeton was the most upscale of the Ivies, and that Cornell was (relatively) the easiest in admissions terms.

An interesting conversation on the commentary track occurred when Jamie was talking about some of the negative reviews by various “freelance journalists.” Jamie says that most of them are living off of trust funds themselves, and they all got very defensive about that fact when he brought it up with them.

Not so surprising. It's hard to make much money off of freelancing, so unless one has a day job it's pretty much necessary to have family money.

[Vim]

Who knew comments were policed so strictly?Not only a chastisement (HS) but also a seconding(Gil).

Most of the movie wasn't news to me. I do not even think these kids are that unusual in today's America. The more discretionary spending an American kid has, the more they resemble these kids.

I am not any more surprised that some wealthy kids are politically incorrect about class differences than I am about the fact that some middle class kids (and also much older folks) are politically incorrect about why the poor are poor.

I have often wondered why middle class Americans are so taken in by the rich. They think the wealthy look upon them as distinct from the poor and uniquely deserving of support. Whereas, many in the middle class despise the poor and consider the poor's status a natural consequence of their degenerate behaviors.

When a person has a networth of tens of millions, a person making 10,000 a year, a person making 40,000 a year and a person making 100,000 are probably not all that different. More importantly, I am sure the wealthy are more than capable of coming up with broad brush strokes by which to paint the rest of society as identically deficient.

[Average Joe]

They think the wealthy look upon them as distinct from the poor and uniquely deserving of support. Whereas, many in the middle class despise the poor and consider the poor's status a natural consequence of their degenerate behaviors.

Many of the middle class are not poor (at least in terms of $$) simply by by personal effort and remain that way only by continued effort.

I myself come from a very poor background. Of those I grew up with, many are in jail, shot by police, druggies, welfare queens, and so on. This includes fairly close relatives.

There was a time when I thought that my story was special. But, in trading notes with others, I learned it was almost cliche.

Is it any wonder that the middle class "consider the poor's status a natural consequence of their degenerate behaviors?"

But then I consider to first part of the remark: "They think the wealthy look upon them as distinct from the poor and uniquely deserving of support", I'm not sure I understand this. Most I know don't feel themselves to be uniquely deserving of anything except their paychecks, and then only so far as they worked for the them. I'm not sure what "support" means. I got a feeling in reading it, that it meant that somehow middle class people think of themselves as closer to the rich than they do the poor. Perhaps many of the upper middle class do. I suppose maybe they are. It's hard for me to say. My income puts me in that territory, but my education, career and social background say otherwise.

Or perhaps my current peers and I are not as middle class as we think we are.

One thing I can say, the movie is more proof of the existence of parallel universes.

[Peter]

When a person has a net worth of tens of millions, a person making 10,000 a year, a person making 40,000 a year and a person making 100,000 are probably not all that different.

Dunno. It would seem more likely that the multimillionaire and the person making $100K have a lot of things in common. Both are likely to have college educations and at least a fair degree of cultural literacy, no serious criminal records or social pathologies, they consider themselves involved citizens in things like voting, they don't have children out of wedlock, neither one's likely to have experienced things like repossessions or wage garnishments, and so on. The person making $10K is likely to differ from them in most or all of these respects, with the person making $40K somewhere in the middle but probably closer to the two higher categories in "values" terms.

[Dan Kurt]

re: "Perhaps this is because Brown has a pure liberal arts undergraduate program with no practical majors such as accounting or engineering."

Brown has a division of engineering.[http://www.engin.brown.edu/] One of my neighbor's sons flunked out of the first year Brown engineering curriculum a few years ago and transferred to a business degree program of some sort and Graduated from Brown Spring 2006. The boy was Number One graduate his year at the local High School my son graduated from ( my son did not graduate near or at the top his year but had stellar SATS which got him into a !st rate engineering school ) and I remember the boy's mother asking me how could her son, given his study habits and high school success, not do well in Engineering at Brown. (My son at the time was starting Graduate school in Mechanical Engineering at a top 20 in the world University [http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm].) What could I say? I spent 9 years at Penn and experienced being in school with really high IQ students. I would assume Brown would be similar to Penn with a surfeit of brains. Hard work does not compensate for lack of IQ. I, of course, did not tell her that.

Also, dear Vim "intelligence is innate." A vast literature exists on the subject. That IQ can not be effectively taught has been the conclusion for almost 100 years now despite hopeful research to the contrary. Educate yourself on the matter. Here is a start: [http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/englisch.html]. Why not take a free IQ test yourself [http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiqnew/] and see where you stand. If you do well, take a Mensa test and if you qualify for Mensa join the "club" to meet some smart people who in my experience are rarely worth meeting. Really, really smart people, IMHO, are too busy in their own affairs to waste time with wannabes.

Dan Kurt

[Vim]

Average Joe:

"Most I know don't feel themselves to be uniquely deserving of anything except their paychecks, and then only so far as they worked for the them. I'm not sure what "support" means ... "

The middle class is where much of the talk about protecting 'America' comes from. What they really mean is protecting them though. So stuff the middle class tries to get out of the rich include:

1. They want companies to offer them health care even when the company would prefer not to.

2. They want companies to not move to other countries when it is cheaper for them to do so

3. They want companies not to support more immigration even when it profits the company to do so

4. They want wealthy people not to keep their considerable assets off shore like in the Caymans or Switzerland even when it would save them money

5. They socially pressure people like Bill Gates into making foundations or else endure endless amounts of hate

I would say most of the issues this year are about reducing the amount of money the upper class gets and putting it in the pockets of the middle class.

This all amounts to wealth transfer to the middle class.

Peter:

"It would seem more likely that the multimillionaire and the person making $100K have a lot of things in common."

If you mean 2 or 3 million then perhaps not but I was more thinking in the 80 million and up region. I doubt someone earning 100K is going to have much in common with these people.

[Vim]

Dan Kurt:

Hey Dan, thanks for answering my question. Okay so one vote for innate and unchangeable.

There are a few assumptions you are making about me in your post, I should warn a fair number of them are inaccurate.

[Jim Beam]

Ivanka is livid that someone thinks that, because she’s rich, it means she doesn’t have any problems.

Sure the mega rich have problems, it's just that they don't have the problems that regular people face. Such as: taking orders from stupid bosses and customers, shoddy HMOs denying them medical coverage, job insecurity, and making sure their kids don't get beaten by unruly public school children that find pleasure in flashing gang signs or ones that refer to anybody that doesn't like NASCAR as a "faggot".

So, ummm...cry me a friggin river Ms. Trump! Does she ever have to encounter rowdy, poor white trash or boisterous dark skinned people on a weekly/monthly basis that us "regular folk" have to encounter?

(Probably on a daily basis if you're class standing is below par.)

[Average Joe]

I would say most of the issues this year are about reducing the amount of money the upper class gets and putting it in the pockets of the middle class.

This all amounts to wealth transfer to the middle class.

I guess it depends on how one defines middle class doesn't it. Health care really isn't a middle class problem. I would say most of the issues are about the transfer of wealth from middle class to working class and below, couched in terms of soaking the rich. Of your pts:
#1 Middle class people consider there health care part of their paycheck, they believe the poor would have health care if it just weren't for "degenerate behavior"
#2,#3, #4 Not really on topic. Companies moving jobs offshore is not a conflict between rich and lower classes. There is no such thing as an even playing field across international boundaries. The only fair international trade in jobs and goods is conducted on a negotiated case by case basis or in a environment of normalized regulatory and cultural traditions across those boundaries. (A true multi-culturalist would understand and respect that) People who insist that international trade not destabilize aren't really asking for something special because of there clss status. But here I am going off topic. I stop.

#5 I suspect that the pressure on Bill Gates to establish foundations comes more from the upper classes than it does the middle class. Most middle class people that I know have a very "if you earned it, good for you type" attitude. But then, I guess that depends on your definition of middle class. No, when you're the richest cat in the world, you rub shoulders with those in a different universe, one that you suspect you don't really belong in. Philanthropy is a value of the upper class, probably something they consider more worthy of their time than a mere job. If Gates was simply trying to take pressure off of himself from middle class envy, he would set up foundations then keep going on with his first love, making billions at Microsoft. But he is stepping down to devote his life to philanthropy. Points to an entirely different motive.

[Spungen]

There was a time when I thought that my story was special. But, in trading notes with others, I learned it was almost cliche.

Joe, my experience is that it's typical for the general population, but it's unusual for people who graduate from college by age 22. Even crappy commuter colleges. And, it's very uncommon for people who work in the professions.

They might know of some people that those things have happened to, if their high schools drew from diverse economic areas, but not in their families or inner circle.

So, ummm...cry me a friggin river Ms. Trump! Does she ever have to encounter rowdy, poor white trash

You mean besides her dad & mom(s)? Seriously, her family life seems as dysfunctional as any Jerry Springer guest.

[Peter]

ones that refer to anybody that doesn't like NASCAR as a "faggot"

I've been saying that for a long time, though with respect to the NFL rather than NASCAR. Because I don't metaphorically fellate The Most Important Sport in the World I'm a grave threat to the rectums of little boys.

[speed]

HS, great documentary. Thanks for pointing it out.

I feel sorry for that guy, SI Newhouse IV. His face shows signs of fetal alcohol syndrome.

[Dan Kurt]

re: "There are a few assumptions you are making about me [Vim] in your post, I should warn a fair number of them are inaccurate."

My dear Vim, I am not assuming anything about you. Details concerning you are of little interest to me. My reply was actually to Lurkers in general, as if my response were a mini Socratic Dialogue with you serving as Alcibiades, allegedly Socrates' most brilliant, if flawed, student. Interested Lurkers were given a few clues on how to learn more about the subjects discussed on their own.

Dan Kurt

[zai]

There's another very interesting ultra-rich offspring characteristic on display here. The ones who ended up with the unlucky role of dice resulting in the looks of the rich so-so looking parent and the brains of the sexy one. If I remember correctly, one of these poor sods spent his time time learning to fence, while another was obsessed with horses. And the sadly amusing thing about the kid who takes up fencing is how he mumbles and shuffles about how he wants to be like everyone else (or something similar; I am relying on vague recollections). Yes so to slum it like a commoner, you take up fencing!

[Andrew Yates]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7457140802142500840

Here is the documentary. HS, how can I make a link so that this URL doesn't overflow the comment space?

[Andrew Yates]

Stephanie Erklentz: "I learned _a lot_ about finance. I learned certain skills, how to interact with clients, that was my best skill, like I got hand written notes from CEOs of companies saying I was great, I was fabulous, if I needed anything call them..."

Wow, sign me up for the first year, entry level job at Merrill Lynch where I not only personally meet CEOs of companies, but they hand write me notes exclaiming that I can contact them at any time. Them must be sum darn gud peopling skills, Stephie.

[Uriel Bolt]

I grew up with rich kids and regarding Ivanka, they do have their share of problems. They seemed to be prone to dysfunctional families, latchkey kids or kids without supervision, alcoholism, snobbery. Their breeding pool is small and just an anecdote, the number of congenital problems appeared high. There were good and kind people too. A friend told me the family tensions can be high and a reason kids and relatives do little more than drink and play golf or whatever, is the power holder in the family refuses to delegate any power or responsibilities. Old school, the non power holders were murdered to prevent revolts and coupes. New School, encourage feckless behavior. I read one of Taki's books, titled something like Pimps, Tarts & Playboys, it is quite illuminating to look with him from the top down rather than the usual bottom or middle up. "All men with honor are kings, but not all Kings have honor." -writer Alan Sharp in the movie, RobRoy

[Uriel Bolt]

Regarding intelligence, I am confident everyone here has had this experience: talking to someone and felt their own IQ dropping as they spoke, and the flip, discussing with an intelligent person, feeling that one expressed themselves well and had a better understanding of difficult ideas.
A consistently intelligent environment must have some capacity to provoke intelligence while long term exposure to the thick headed has the opposite. I assume some of you have seen the behavior of an intelligent colleague who grew up the only smart one in the family, and how that stunts them.
Scientific American published an article about rats that fascinated me. The rat were put in a mentally stimulating world, enriched(!) they called it, then tested against baseline. Some rat's brains grew and their abilities too. Others failed to improve. Then electric shocks were applied to the base of their tails. This proved to increase intelligence in the lagging group- the lagging group was male.

[Dan Kurt]

re: HBO video BORN RICH
This worked for me [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22Born+Rich%22] while the one posted by Andrew Yates did not work.
Dan Kurt

[Vim]

Uriel:

Human brain structure has a surprising amount of plasticity and longterm cognitive habits seem to produce physically observable changes over time.

Although, there is a limit to the validity with which you can compare mice and men. Each species, can be expected to, and it has been observed that they do, vary widely in the character of their responses to stimuli.

[Lyn]

I enjoyed reading this posting and some of the comments, and I wanted to add to it.

I deeply appreciate Cody and people like him. That upper class Americans feel the need to do something is mildly commendable, but they don't owe society anything. America has misguided ideas about the wealthy - that they don't deserve their lifestyles. It shows in the obnoxious way the middle, working, and lower classes demand tax cuts while arguing that the wealthy don't pay enough taxes. The middle class wants government services, but it does not want to pay taxes. The US penalizes the wealthy. It is the wealthy who invest and generate progress. No one should apologize for his wealth or success. That's what I like about Cody - no apology or misplaced guilt. I just wish that Cody had given more of his opinion of the other classes.

Finally, I appreciate the comments about journalism being dominated by the rich and not really a competitive field. Investing is like that, too. With all of the books, websites, and even online brokerage accounts there is the illusion that the common man can invest and prosper. But it's just an illusion. Almost all of these people are just enriching others. Investing - like journalism - remains an area that is tilted toward the benefit of the wealthy.

[speed]

Lyn,

about taxes. Capital gains, property and inheritance taxes will tax the upper class. The income tax taxes mainly the middle class. (A lot of "poor" cheat heavily on their taxes because they have income that's hard to track, such as tips or from "gigs") Living in NY, my marginal tax is almost 50%, which is outrageous for an income under 200k, given that the capital gains are at 15%.

Speed

[Spungen]

"With all of the books, websites, and even online brokerage accounts there is the illusion that the common man can invest and prosper. But it's just an illusion. Almost all of these people are just enriching others. Investing - like journalism - remains an area that is tilted toward the benefit of the wealthy. "

Whoa, you're not getting away that easy. What's the common man supposed to do with his money then? Stuff it in a trunk and sit on it with a shotgun?

Or perhaps you're just referring to speculation and outsized gains, not regular old investing?

[Dan Kurt]

re: HBO video BORN RICH, stirred memories.
Finished watching.
First, my impression was that most of the subjects were less than really bright unlike ( I presume ) their ancestor who made the money. This probably represents regression to the mean.
Second, I have no clue if anyone reading this Blog has had any real contact with scions of the ultra rich. I have two contacts. One was a Wharton MBA student who lived near me for a few years just off campus. He was rich but probably not as rich as those depicted in the film as he was really studying for an MBA. He dressed well unlike most of us—three pieced suits were his uniform of the day. He was a good looking guy but seemed to have no interest in picking up girls but occasionally came to mixers held at my Fraternity to drink. I asked him why he didn't flirt with the girls and he said that it would never work. ( Now, I understand why he said that. At the time I just figured he was a snob as student nurses and young coeds made a high number of the girls who came to the mixers. ) I remember one incident with him. His father brought him occasionally a new car for him to use and drove away with his old one. Once he received a brand new 12 cylinder Jaguar SKE. He told me that the car was a lemon and was getting rid of it soon. I asked him what was wrong with it as it was a gorgeous sports car. He said to me that he would take me for a ride and show me. We drove to the Skuykill express way and drove out toward Valley Forge. When the speed reached some critical point in the low 60 mphs oil drops came out of the louvered hood and hit the wind shield. Higher or lower speeds did not produce the oil. If it were my car I would have had the problem fixed. To him the solution was to just get rid of the car. He also parked the car for safety at a garage in Center City not near the Penn Campus which probably cost him plenty. I shudder to think of the cost which had no consequence to him.

My second contact relates to a family known mainly to my wife. Her father was a banker at the Irving Trust in Wall Street and later an Executive with American Metals Climax. He developed a long running friendship with a really wealthy client. This man's family was living on inherited wealth and he had three children. My wife grew up spending summers in the Armonk, NY area living next door to this man's summer home. As such, she grew up with the man's three children. The youngest child, a boy, was exactly her age and was a playmate when they were really young. Years later I spent two weekends separated by a few years at the man's current house as a guest. The house was built on a hill over looking the Mount Kisco Reservoir and was simply magnificent. The house had been acquired to satisfy his new wife. The first wife ( on the social register was also from old wealth ) lost her mind and was committed. The two older children of the man descended in circumstances as the money was running out. The man committed suicide and the new wife sold the new home. Now comes the younger son. He flunked out of both Yale and Princeton and a few lesser schools. I finally met him in 1975. I was hired by a corporation located in the Santa Barbara, CA area. My in-laws were visiting and we were walking around the tourist site at Solvang ( a pseudo Danish village near Reagan's Ranch ) when my mother in law exclaimed "Philip" as she spied a hippy and his hippy ?wife? sitting on the sidewalk selling home made leather belts, bill folds and sandals. Philip was the younger son of the late rich man. He was filthy, bearded and dressed in tatters. The money had run out! Talk about an embarrassing episode. Yes he remembered my wife and her parents. A lot of hugs went around and later I heard stories of what happens when families of great wealth spend too much. Nelson DeMille's GOLD COAST is a great novel to get an insight into OLD MONEY.

[miles]

Nelson DeMille's GOLD COAST was a very funny, very entertaining novel. Ive read it more than once.

[wilberforce]

'born rich' was ridiculous. who could dislike the italian (cody) when he was trying so desperately to seem like a person in a whit stillman movie? HS neglects to mention that he's filmed holding a book by his favorite philosophy (schopenhauer, naturally), saying he likes modeling because he had been too 'inward' looking lately. one assumes he had just pulled down his well-worn copy of 'world as will and representation, vol.II' for a little light reading before being surprised by the young filmmaker. as i said, ridiculous.

[Omega Man]

The only advantage the rest of us have over the rich is that we outnumber them so outrageously. Before winning elections depended on expensive electronic media campaigns, politicians paid a lot more attention to the majority than they do now. But the power to elect them still resides with us. I say we ignore the obscene and duplicitous propaganda of candidates subsidized by the plutocracy and vote into office someone who will tax the fuck out of the rich.

[speed]

OmegaMan, you clearly show deep jealousy and hate for the rich. No wonder they prefer to hide their wealth and not talk about it.

The rich are already taxed via property, inheritance and capital gains taxes. Your attitude increases the taxes on the middle class, creating a greater rift between the rich and the poor. That's why I dislike people like you, who don't care that the economy benefited from the rich people (years ago), but rather don't want anybody to have anything more than you do. In other words, you want if you can't be more than poor, let everybody be poor. The same idea was tried in communist countries. Nobody really wanted to do good work, since they all got payed the same and couldn't get fired. That's your perfect society. Go to Cuba or North Korea, Omega Man.

Speed

[smythe]

I don't think Dan Kurt was trying to come off as a pompous fool, but he succeeded.

[Omega Man]

Dear Speed - or should I call you by a more appropriate monicker such as "Slowness"? - all I meant to say is, that if we want to increase tax revenue we should take a page from the playbook of Willie Sutton, and go "where the money is..." Increasing taxes on anyone with investment income over a million a year will, by definition, NOT affect the middle class. It will instead zero in on those trust fund babies well up into that tiny 1 percent that hold 60 percent of all stocks and bonds. As for you, your defense of those with inherited wealth is so half-hearted that even you feel compelled to parenthetically qualify their contributions to society with the phrase "years ago..." Precisely, Barf-for-Brains. What have they done lately? Noblesse oblige is dead and gone, replaced by Paris Hilton and her ilk.

I am no communist, no socialist, no enemy of the meritocracy or idealizer of the poor. If I dislike the rich, it's because I've seen them in action - in life as well as via the media. I was persuaded to go to school free where my father taught rather than force my middle class parents to shell out big bucks for Dartmouth, and the college I went to was largely a safety school for rich kids rejected from the Ivy League. Never before or since have I seen ignorance coupled so conspicuously with opulence. There were gilded dullards there who did nothing but drugs the whole time - only to have their daddies get them New York jobs in advertising and finance, while working class commuters with summa cum laude BA's ended up driving cabs.

So, yes indeed, you Dung-for-Dendrites Dumbass, I do hate the rich - but not for the reasons you so obtusely imagine.

[Bebe]

In search of fountain pens, I surfed in to this Blog (and thanks kindly for your thoughts, Half Sigma, thereon). Then I saw the content and topics, such as "Born Rich", which I figured was about that film made by the Johnson & Johnson kid. A friend copied it for me with the remark that I would enjoy the subject matter. Such a fascinating commentary from you all on this somewhat slight documentary. Aside from the occasionally painful fact that Jamie Johnson was coming to terms with his family history through the film, I rather thought all the interviewees fairly typical of human beings in their 20's: overly self-conscious about what others think, out and about for life experiences, and dealing with various self-perceived neuroses brought on by family parenting. Each person was utterly American in viewing his/her family past..."it's not quite 'nice' to live upon inherited money." The unfortunate quandary of inheritors is that "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." So one sees poseurs like Baron Cody and Stephanie Erklentz focusing on the "richesse permit" because they don't see the "noblesse oblige." Perhaps it was ever thus, for, when families fail to pass on to children duty, we are all the poorer (economically and socially) for it. Yet the whole point of having sufficient funds which exempt one from making a living is to be able to occupy one's time with matters of a higher good for society. And the family inculcates that obligation in its offspring, not society or government.
FYI, three books to peruse: Rich Kids by John Sedgwick; Old Money by Nelson Aldrich, Jr.; and Class by Paul Fussell.